- Self-defense mechanism now propagates to the capship and all crew
members if any member triggers it. If anyone docks before the self-
defense timer expires, it will also propagate to them. The victim will
be able to defend theirself without faction penalty from anyone who
was ever inside the capship during the self-defense time.
- Fixed crash/lockup at startup on Linux64 version.
- Updated Oculus Rift version with updates from Gear VR.
- Minor bug/crash fixes.

[I'm hoping this doesn't ONLY apply to capships, but also any ship that holds a gunner]...?

Yes. Sorry for the confusion.

EckaSoft

So now if I go shoot player A, then dock with player B's capship which also has player C as a gunner, will the game expand player A's self-defense immunity to kill both player B and player C without any standing penalty even after I undock from player B's ship?

I can see how that make sense if player B is actively harboring a criminal, but if it sticks even after I undock (or am kicked out), that could be very exploitable.

Guilty by association.

Good point.

You candyasses just figure out how you want the rules to be and then let incarnate know please.

Why're you so defensive? Planned on exploiting it or something?

I reported problems with gunners, TempKOS, and friendly fire years ago and they went totally unaddressed. That was even before they added the self-defense mechanism to the mix.

That just seems to be the way things get done around here. Frankly I feel like we should be glad they're doing something about it now and try to work out the details of it so it make sense before it becomes some permanent fixture of the game.

abortretryfail, regarding your scenario, no, if you dock to a capship, your self-defense flag does not get propagated to the other crew members. However, if you then take control of your capship, the flag will get transferred to all crew members.

I removed or edited some negative, non-constructive posts from this thread because: "This area is meant to be a positive place for constructive discussion of the game" per a previous post from Inc. Please keep your posts constructive and positive (or at least strive for neutral).

So it's not constructive to point out that maybe these things should have been and in the future be addressed sooner than later?

"So it's not constructive to point out that maybe these things should have been and in the future be addressed sooner than later?"

Well, maybe. What's the constructive part? The devs have told us what they've been up to and why. They fixed the issue, just not on a timeline that pleased everyone.

The post the was edited and the post that was removed were not in keeping with the standard that has been requested here. Here you chose to express yourself in a way that was not negative and not dramatic. Thanks.

Just how pissed off did you have to get in order for Incarnate to fix this for you Wally? For future reference... #whitewashed #servergate

Well, maybe. What's the constructive part?

I don't know because the post was removed.

What was not constructive about Bignasty's post? What's constructive about my EckaSoft post?

It would seem that it's time for the gloves to come off....

Whistler does his best to manage the content of the forums to my specifications, while trying to intrude as little as possible. So if something crosses a certain threshold, it gets removed. You may not agree with his threshold.. but I do.

As always, you can choose not to participate on my forums.

Anyway, I'm glad that (I think?) the patch changes are received as positive and constructive. Yes, it's a bummer they didn't happen earlier. It really wasn't a simple problem to fix, which required quite a bit of new code, and changing a lot of internal code-design, as well as exhaustive testing to prevent new bugs. Ray really burned the midnight oil to make this happen (to some extent, we both did).

But also, in the grand spectrum of what Guild has privately endured over the past year, I would call the entire issue pretty irrelevant. No one wants people to be frustrated by an un-fixed flaw/bug, but moving on with positivity is probably best.

"Whistler does his best to manage the content of the forums to my specifications, while trying to intrude as little as possible. So if something crosses a certain threshold, it gets removed. You may not agree with his threshold.. but I do."

I'm positively thankful this is the only place he has power to edit, also positive that the threshold varies.

That's positively fantastic.

Moving right along, is there any other productive and relevant feedback that's specific to this release?

So how much whining dis Wally have to do on a scale of 1 to "I quit if you don't fix my standing"? Positively speaking of course.

Ore, I'm thread-muting you, because you clearly don't know how to contribute to this thread in a productive way.

There was no specific user who caused this to be fixed, or who complained until we agreed, or any of your other theories. This has been on my radar ever since the problem was introduced. I just didn't have the time-budget to go after tracking down and really robustly solving it until last week, when we finally (I think) wrapped the development that was supposed to go out in ~June (largely because of problems and bugs that were external to us and our codebase).

So, when things get fixed, how about we don't freaking whine about that, ok?